OPINION: BBC’s Al-Fayed documentary makes a dangerous omission

Imagine you are a young woman who gets a dream job in New York City. You wake up, get dressed and go in with all the excitement you can muster. After a few weeks on the job, you are told you have been reassigned to work with the CEO. It seems like a great opportunity, but the job is nothing like what you expected. You are coerced and forced to be a personal assistant. You are raped, abused and tortured while still being kept on the company payroll.
This is the very definition of human trafficking. For more than 20 years, the United Nations has provided a way to define human trafficking in the Palermo Protocol. Yet, we still struggle to respond to trafficking − let alone prevent it − because we are unwilling to name it.
As a result, for too long people, like the hundreds of clients I have represented in the Human Trafficking Clinic at the University of Michigan Law School, and my not-so-hypothetical personal assistant, have been trafficked in plain sight without anyone talking about it. 
On Thursday, the BBC released a documentary about billionaire businessman Mohamed Al-Fayed, the father of the late Princess Diana’s boyfriend, Dodi Fayed. The documentary outlines in great detail the atrocities that more than 20 women allegedly faced at the hands of the elder Al-Fayed. According to the documentary, he raped and sexually assaulted women.
Many, if not all, of the women the BBC highlighted as part of that documentary were said to be victims of human trafficking using Harrods department store as the staging ground. According to the BBC’s reporting, the department store not only failed to stop him but also helped to cover up the abuse. And while Harrods did apologize, the company took no responsibility for its role in the abuse, instead focusing on Al-Fayed’s depravity.
The Palermo Protocol defines trafficking in persons as “the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation.”
This comprehensive definition underscores the organized and calculated nature of trafficking, distinguishing it from isolated incidents of exploitation.
OPINION:Help survivors of human trafficking. Their criminal records are not their fault.
While it is wonderful that the BBC was able to tell so many women’s stories as part of its documentary, I think the documentary failed to identify what happened as human trafficking. As a result, in uncovering a shockingly broad and enduring scheme of sexual exploitation and coercion carried out through storied, wealthy and powerful institutions and individuals, the BBC diminished what happened to the women and constrained our ability to secure justice for them. 
This oversight is not merely a matter of semantics − it fundamentally misconstrues the systemic nature of trafficking, obscuring the very networks and mechanisms that traffickers utilize to prey on vulnerabilities and allowing its accomplices to evade accountability. 
One of the most damaging consequences of this failure is that stories of exploitation often become “he said/she said” narratives. When headlines reduce trafficking to “a complicated relationship” or frame it as a case of abuse by a single perpetrator, they provide a myopic view that betrays the complexity and horror of the crime.
This narrow framing turns the focus on the thoughts, choices and actions of the survivor, rather than presenting a clear narrative of organized and systematic abuse.
It misinforms the public and undermines the efforts to combat trafficking by ignoring the multifaceted systems traffickers rely upon. It completely ignores the role of accomplices − drivers, security personnel, human resource professionals, health care providers, financial institutions and corrupt officials: Each participating if they are not speaking up.
To be clear, Harrods did more than bury its head in the sand. 
The settlements in 2023 concerning Jeffrey Epstein’s financial enablers illustrate the critical importance of recognizing the accomplices that enable human trafficking. For years, Epstein relied on major banks to finance his trafficking operations, utilizing their services to manage and conceal the funds that allowed him to exploit countless victims. The settlements finally held these banks accountable, but this measure came far too late.
For a significant period, news reports on Epstein’s crimes often focused on his relationships with his victims, underplaying the intricate and extensive system that made his trafficking possible. Only through legal action did a fuller picture of Epstein’s trafficking network emerge, revealing numerous complicit entities.
OPINION:She took on world’s largest porn site for profiting off child abuse. She’s winning.
Moreover, the misuse of language feeds into a cycle of ignorance and apathy. The term “human trafficking” carries with it a call to action, an acknowledgment of a grave human rights violation that demands a systemic response. When this term is absent from public discourse, so too is the urgency to address the root causes and vast networks that sustain trafficking.
The media have a powerful role in shaping public perception and policy response.
This week, in the United States, Sean “Diddy” Combs was indicted for human trafficking. That is important not just because of the possibility of justice for the women he is alleged to have abused, but also because the legal system has called it what it was.
By accurately labeling the Al-Fayed survivors as having been trafficked and by illustrating the organized frameworks behind it, the media can help galvanize comprehensive measures to combat the crime. This includes holding not just the visible perpetrators accountable but also those who facilitate and profit from the trafficking enterprise.
The young woman from the hypothetical above was surrounded by fellow employees who had a choice to help her or facilitate the CEO’s exploitation. We cannot continue, as the BBC did in this documentary, ignoring the choices made by those who enable human trafficking.
Bridgette A. Carr, ’02, is clinical professor of law and director of the Human Trafficking Clinic at the University of Michigan Law School. She is also a faculty affiliate at the Center for Positive Organizations at U-M’s Ross School of Business. The opinion expressed above is hers and not of the law school.